Full text
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 21-02989-MDL-ALTONAGA
In re:
JANUARY 2021 SHORT SQUEEZE
TRADING LITIGATION
_________________________________/
This Document Relates to the Following Action:
Days v. Robinhood Mkts., Inc., No. 21-cv-21310-CMA
ORDER
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Plaintiff, Robert Days’s Motion to Recommend
Days [v. Robinhood Mkts., Inc., No. 21-cv-21310 (S.D. Fla. 2025)] for Remand (“Remand
Motion”) [ECF No. 720], filed on January 14, 2025.1 Plaintiff asks the Court to recommend to
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) that his case be remanded to the Northern
District of California. (See Mot. 1). 2 Defendants, Robinhood Markets, Inc., Robinhood
Financial LLC, and Robinhood Securities, LLC (collectively “Robinhood”), filed an Opposition
(“Remand Opposition”) [ECF No. 723]; perhaps tellingly, Plaintiff did not file a reply
memorandum. The Court has carefully considered the parties’ written submissions, the record,
and applicable law. For the following reasons, the Motion is denied.
I. BACKGROUND
This multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) arises from trading restrictions imposed by
Robinhood during the January 2021 short squeeze involving so-called “meme stocks.” (Mot. to
1 Plaintiff’s Motion incorporates the points and authorities in his Opposition to Robinhood’s Motion to
Compel Arbitration [ECF No. 719]; the Court will cite to that filing as necessary. (See Mot. 1).
2 The Court uses the pagination generated by the electronic CM/ECF database, which appears in the headers
of all court filings.
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 736 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/13/2025 Page 1 of 6
CASE NO. 21-02989-MDL-ALTONAGA
2
Compel Arbitration (“Arbitration Motion”) [ECF No. 713] 2 (citation, footnote call number, and
quotation marks omitted)). On March 15, 2021, Days filed his Second Amended Complaint in
the Northern District of California, alleging federal securities and state law claims arising from
Robinhood’s transition to in-house clearing and other, related misrepresentations. (See Pl.’s
Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. to Compel Arbitration (“Arbitration Opp’n”) [ECF No. 719] 2–3 (citation
omitted)).
Over Plaintiff’s objections, the JPML transferred his case to this District as part of MDL
No. 2989. (See id. 33; see also MDL Transmittal Letter [ECF No. 8]). In May 2021, the Court
organized the MDL into four tranches: (1) Antitrust, (2) Robinhood, (3) Other Brokers, and (4)
Federal Securities. (See Arbitration Opp’n 3 (citing May 18, 2021 Order [ECF No. 310])). Soon
thereafter, appointed counsel filed consolidated complaints, but Plaintiff asserts that these
complaints did not name him as a plaintiff or encompass his state-law concealment and negligent
misrepresentation claims. (See id. 4 (citing Am. Compls. [ECF Nos. 358; 359; 388; 409; 410;
411; 416; 446; 451; 483])).
The Court ultimately dismissed the Antitrust, Robinhood, and Other Brokers Tranches with
prejudice (see Arbitration Mot. 3 (citing Orders [ECF Nos. 453; 470; 525])), and the Eleventh
Circuit affirmed the dismissals (see id. (citing 76 F.4th 1335 (11th Cir. 2023); 105 F.4th 1346
(11th Cir. 2024); No. 23-10436, 2024 WL 4440230 (11th Cir. Oct. 8, 2024))). In the Federal
Securities tranche, the Court granted Robinhood’s motion to dismiss in part; the only claims still
pending in this MDL are individual federal securities claims from Plaintiffs who were not among
the settling Plaintiffs in that tranche. (See id. (citing Aug. 10, 2022 Order [ECF No. 503]); see
also id. 4).
3 Plaintiff mistakenly states that the MDL court transferred his case to the Southern District of California.
(See Arbitration Opp’n 3).
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 736 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/13/2025 Page 2 of 6
CASE NO. 21-02989-MDL-ALTONAGA
3
Days contends that, with MDL proceedings concluded and his claims still unresolved, the
Court should recommend remanding his case to the Northern District of California. (See
Arbitration Opp’n 5–10). Robinhood disputes both premises. (See generally Remand Opp’n).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
In multidistrict litigation, the power to remand a case to the transferor court lies solely with
the JPML. See In re Denture Cream Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 09-2051-MD, 2011 WL 13220167,
at *3 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 16, 2011) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a)). Under 28 U.S.C. section 1407(a),
the JPML must return each transferred case to its original district at or before the conclusion of
pretrial proceedings, unless it has already been terminated. See id. The usual practice is for the
transferee court to recommend remand. See JPML Rule of Proc. 10.1(b); see also id. 10.3(a)
(recognizing that the JPML “is reluctant to order a remand absent the suggestion of the transferee
judge”). In determining whether to recommend remand, the transferee court should be guided by
the JPML’s established standards. See Denture Cream Prods. Liab. Litig., 2011 WL 13220167,
at *3 (citation omitted).
The transferee court should suggest remand only upon a showing of good cause. See id.
(citing In re Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litig., Nos. 04-5184, 06-5121, 2009 WL 4796662, at *2
(D.N.J. Dec. 9, 2009); see also Brokerage Antitrust Litig., 2009 WL 4796662, at *2 (“The Panel
has made it clear that it will ‘remand an action prior to completed pretrial proceedings only upon
a showing of good cause.’” (alteration adopted; emphasis added; citation and quotation marks
omitted)). And the party requesting remand has the burden of establishing good cause. See
Denture Cream Prods. Liab. Litig., 2011 WL 13220167, at *3 (citation omitted).
Ultimately, when pre-trial proceedings remain ongoing, “the question of whether remand
is nevertheless appropriate is left to the discretion of the [JPML].” In re Bridgestone/Firestone,
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 736 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/13/2025 Page 3 of 6
CASE NO. 21-02989-MDL-ALTONAGA
4
Inc., 128 F. Supp. 2d 1196, 1197 (S.D. Ind. 2001) (alteration added; citing In re Patenaude, 210
F.3d 135, 145 (3d Cir. 2000)). That decision typically turns on whether the case will benefit from
continued coordination within the MDL. See Denture Cream Prods. Liab. Litig., 2011 WL
13220167, at *3 (citation omitted). The JPML may choose to remand, for example, when what
remains in the case is purely case-specific and no longer tied to MDL proceedings. See
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 128 F. Supp. 2d at 1197 (citing Patenaude, 210 F.3d at 145); see also
In re Brand-Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litig., 170 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1352 (J.P.M.L. 2001)
(“Whether [s]ection 1407 remand is appropriate for actions or claims in any particular multidistrict
docket is based upon the totality of circumstances involved in that docket.” (alteration added)).
III. DISCUSSION
Days argues that because the MDL’s pretrial proceedings have concluded, and his state-
law concealment and negligent misrepresentation claims remain unresolved, the Court should
recommend remand of his case to the Northern District of California. (See generally Arbitration
Opp’n). Finding that Days’s case has been terminated, and seeing no good cause for remand, the
Court rejects his request.
A. State-law claims
Days’s state-law claims are no longer viable because, as Robinhood notes, the Master
Complaint in the Robinhood Tranche superseded all individual pleadings, and the Court dismissed
that complaint with prejudice. (See Remand Opp’n 2–3; May 18, 2021 Order 1 (creating one
tranche for “state-law claims against [Robinhood]” (alteration added)); Jan. 26, 2022 Order 20).
“[P]arties to multidistrict litigation may consent to filing a ‘master complaint’ that supersedes the
previously filed individual pleadings and merges the transferred actions until pretrial proceedings
have concluded.” (Jan. 26, 2022 Order 20 (quoting Gelboim v. Bank of Am. Corp., 574 U.S. 405,
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 736 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/13/2025 Page 4 of 6
CASE NO. 21-02989-MDL-ALTONAGA
5
413 n.3 (2015))). That is precisely what happened here: the parties stipulated that each tranche
would be governed by a single master complaint, which would replace all individual complaints
and serve as the operative pleading. (See Joint Status Report [ECF No. 322] 2; see also June 3,
2021 Order [ECF No. 323] 1; Jan. 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litig., 76 F.4th at 1344). Days
did not object to this framework. (See Remand Opp’n 4).
By dismissing the Robinhood Tranche Complaint with prejudice, the Court extinguished
all state-law claims within that tranche. (See generally Jan. 26, 2022 Order). The Eleventh
Circuit affirmed this dismissal, shutting the door on any attempt by Days or other Plaintiffs to
resurrect those claims. See Jan. 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litig., 76 F.4th at 1355. Nor is the
Court persuaded that Days’s claims, even if not individually addressed, remain viable, given its
prior ruling on the limits of Robinhood’s duties to its customers. See In re Jan. 2021 Short
Squeeze Trading Litig., 584 F. Supp. 3d 1161, 1181–91 (S.D. Fla. 2022) (noting, for example, that
courts have been reluctant to impose tort duties for economic loss absent a special relationship or
other exceptional circumstances, and that contractual relationships — such as those governed by
customer agreements — generally do not give rise to independent tort duties). With Days’s state-
law claims dismissed — or, at best, likely precluded — remand serves no purpose.
B. Pre-trial Proceedings
Even if Days had viable state-law claims, the Court would still find remand premature.
Pretrial proceedings in this MDL are ongoing, and, more importantly, Days has not demonstrated
the good cause necessary for the Court to recommend remand. (See Remand Opp’n 8–10); see
also Denture Cream Prods. Liab. Litig., 2011 WL 13220167, at *3 (citation omitted). Notably,
Robinhood moved to compel arbitration — including in Days’s case — on December 9, 2024.
(See Arbitration Mot. 5). If ordered, such arbitration would certainly constitute a “pre-trial
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 736 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/13/2025 Page 5 of 6
CASE NO. 21-02989-MDL-ALTONAGA
6
proceeding[.]” Bridgestone/Firestone, 28 F. Supp. 2d at 1197 (alteration added). And the Court
sees no reason to hasten a remand recommendation before resolving the arbitration issue.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff, Robert Days’s Motion to Recommend Days
[v. Robinhood Mkts., Inc., No. 21-cv-21310 (S.D. Fla. 2025)] for Remand [ECF No. 720] is
DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 13th day of March, 2025.
________________________________________
CECILIA M. ALTONAGA
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc:
counsel of record
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 736 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/13/2025 Page 6 of 6